Template talk:Francoism
Vox Populi does not have an ideology. They repeatedly condemn Francoism, and they repeatedly emphasize the amorphous and anarchic nature of their movement. Just because one of your members claim that Vox Populi is Francoist when a much larger number deny the fact does not make the alliance Francoist. Cortath 14:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC) : Indeed. And not to mention that the practice of Vox is diametrically opposed to every single core Francoist principle. Even if a spade were to call itself a ladder, it is still a spade. Save your trolling for the OWF; it doesn't belong on the wiki. Soviestan 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ::First, I am not a VOX member, so lets just calm down. Second, they have not been condemning Francoism, just the way in which NPO has butchered it for their own purposes. Also, "just because one of their members" said so does in fact make it so with VOX, read their charter. ::However, in the interests of avoiding an argument, I would be interested to hear your reaction to this proposal: ::Include them in a new category named "Disputed Alliances". Any objections there? I'll put it up and if you take it off again I will not press the point, but I do not see how you could argue with that. General Mazur 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC) :::Of course there is an objection. One member baselessly claiming that Vox is Francoist does not make it so. I could say "I am General Mazur," does that mean that I can then go to your wiki page and start claiming that you follow my ideas or are in some way associated to me? Of course not. You are suggesting that because they are supposedly 'anarchic' that this means they can be whatever one member says they are. This is absurd. Can they be simultaneously a square and a circle if a member each claims that they are? Nonsense. Moreover, the very fact that this contradiction exists in Vox dictates that they are not in any way Francoist -- such chaos is antithetical to Francoism. Indeed, if Vox are to be listed as Francoist then you might as well list every alliance in existence as Francoist, because they are all just as close (or closer) to it as Vox is. :::As I have already pointed out, this entire claim is not only absurd, but it is only done for the purposes of trolling. They are trying to hijack the name Francoism to annoy us, and the wiki should not be supporting this. :::So to summarise: you have here the two foremost Francoist theorists (who together have written 99.9% of all material on the subject) stating that they are not Francoist; you have 99.9% of their own members stating that they are not Francoist (and yes, said 99.9% have indeed been condemning the theory); and you have the theory itself very clearing demonstrating that they are not Francoist. What is in dispute? One forum troll trying to get a rise out of the NPO? I hope you don't mind if I concentrate on the theory instead. :::And you are not a Vox member? Just someone using a V avatar who makes lengthy posts calling myself a "minion" and Pacificans "brainwashed zombies." How very neutral of you. Soviestan 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ::::I am entitled to my IC Politics and can still remain neutral on the Wiki, my friend. General Mazur 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC) :::::You are the one who brought up your lack of direct affiliation to try and lend credibility to your political editing, not me. So I am just as entitled to dispel that myth. Soviestan 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::There is no "myth." I am remaining neutral. Now, can you go on the wiki claiming to be me? Of course not! However, VOX allows their members to make official announcements on behalf of the alliance. Now, you are entitled to express your opinion on these talk pages, but so am I. Come to that, you have the right to edit my nation's wiki pages as well. I also have the right to request that you be banned if you vandalise them. That's kinda what the administrators are for. Want to ask them what they think and then reach a decision? I'll tell Lol Pie to come and take a look at this then. General Mazur 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC) :::::::Their members can make announcements on behalf of their alliance: so what? That I can say "I am General Mazur" does not make me General Mazur; likewise that one of their members can say "Vox is Francoist" does not make Vox Francoist -- even if all of their members claimed that Vox was Francoist (which they most certainly don't) this would not make them Francoist. This is basic political theory. The fact is that every aspect of Francoist theory screams that they are not; indeed, the very idea that every member can make an announcement on behalf of their alliance screams that they are not. If you read the theory instead of their one-line trolling claims then you might realise this. Soviestan 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I know it does not make them so, but at the same time NPO does not own the Francoism template. And when you say "read the theory" do you mean the true Francoist theory (which, I admit, they still do not technically fall under), or the revised "Lets see how long we can bullshit our members into supporting us" revision of yours? And what "one-line trolls" do you speak of? Certainly nothing here is one-lined. The speech I gave condemning your fascist version of francoism is not one-line. You are starting to loose my interest, frankly. General Mazur 23:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC) :::::::::And there it is; finally the truth. You know that they are not Francoist, so you have decided to throw out all Francoist theory without justification before so that you can mould it around yourself. You give no historical or theoretical justification, only insults and buzzwords. This is not how political theory works, and it is certainly not how Francoism works -- in fact, again, your approach is antithetical to Francoism. But it gets even better than that, even by your own imagined and unspoken definitions you explicitly state that they are not Francoist! So what is the "dispute" here?! :::::::::No, your diatribe was not one-line, but the substance of it could have been put down in that. You did not detail any alternative conceptions of Francoism of its core principles; you did not describe what was "revisionist;" you did not detail the history you alluded to; and you did not describe how you follow Francoism. All you did was throw a pile of ad hominems at myself and other Pacificans before making claims of moderator bias. I'm sorry, but a political theory this does not make, and it does nothing to support your argument. :::::::::And I'm not here to hold your interest. Surprisingly enough neither this nor Francoism is not about you. Soviestan 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::My point was that by putting them in a disputed alliances section, it could satisfy those who believe they are francoist, those who want them to be francoist, and those who know they are not. That was the theory, anyway. General Mazur 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::The Francoism wiki is about Francoism, not about satisfying people -- this is a scientific political theory, not a sewing circle. Since we have both acknowledged that they are not Francoist and thus have no place in a Francoism template, I hope you will join me in considering the matter closed. Soviestan 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Certainly, I will join you in that. However, even non-Francoists may edit the Francoism template. ANYONE can edit ANY article on the wiki. That's why the wiki exists. General Mazur 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Strawman argument. Sure, anyone can edit anything on any wiki. That doesn't mean they should, it doesn't mean they're entitled to post incorrect things. I cannot emphasize enough or emphatically enough that the wiki does NOT exist just so anyone can spew their musings. Francoism is a scientific theory and for something/someone/an organization to be Francoist, it must self-consciously embrace that theory and meet any number of criteria. Vox does not meet any such criteria, nor do they consciously embrace it, rather than consciously disavow it. :::::::::::::When they call it "fascist Francoism," they don't call it that because they have a "better" Francoism that they follow. This isn't a schism in Francoism, but simply an enemy of Francoists who have put adjectives that people know are bad in front of Francoism to try to make them think Francoism is bad. Putting an adjective in front of what we call "Francoism" doesn't mean one can claim one is Francoist by virtue of not being among the "fascist Francoists." - Cortath 15:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Agreed, but it was in my beliefs at the time that they were embracing Francoism. Might I ask you, however, who you think is the final authority on Francoism? Because if you think it's NPO, I might want to remind you that the NPO is NOT the be-all and end-all of every debate and discussion. General Mazur 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with Soviestan on this issue, just because someone says something is true, it doesn't necessarily make it true...Also keep the petty bickering/trolling out of the talk pages please. Rishnokof 12:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)